Jurby Airport?

[Gladys]

Listening to MR this morning, there are residents whose homes would be directly in the proposed airfield.  Obviously, they are concerned they will lose their homes and, no doubt, concerned about the effect on the value of their property.  

There is a public meeting on 12 August,  perhaps an earlier meeting would have been a good idea to listen to and address these concerns.  Really poor communication and the residents are asking why there was no public consultation, is that not the next phase of the area plan and why wasn't the sensitivity of this identified earlier (ie when the proposal wad published)? 

Another cluster fuck where a reasonably sensible idea is communicated so poorly, leaving these people in doubt for weeks until they have the opportunity to hear and question the detail. 

 

[2112]

34 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Listening to MR this morning, there are residents whose homes would be directly in the proposed airfield.  Obviously, they are concerned they will lose their homes and, no doubt, concerned about the effect on the value of their property.  

There is a public meeting on 12 August,  perhaps an earlier meeting would have been a good idea to listen to and address these concerns.  Really poor communication and the residents are asking why there was no public consultation, is that not the next phase of the area plan and why wasn't the sensitivity of this identified earlier (ie when the proposal wad published)? 

Another cluster fuck where a reasonably sensible idea is communicated so poorly, leaving these people in doubt for weeks until they have the opportunity to hear and question the detail. 

 

You are right.

Doesnt IOMG have legions of communication experts, particularly ex journalists, and others experienced within PR? It also makes you wonder, whether CM Cannan, Tim Johnston and Kate Lord Brennan actually have sufficient intelligence. let alone any common sense? Reading the many comments on social media, IOMG doesn’t come out of this smelling of roses. 

Edited July 31 by 2112

[Two-lane]

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/airfield-site-is-protected-wildlife-habitat-709428

Birds and aircraft in the same place would be a problem.

[Utah 01]

37 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Birds and aircraft in the same place would be a problem.

.....are always a problem and have been since the Wright brothers.

Skylarks as well as a breeding habitat for linnets and curlew will still be there on and over the airfield.

[Harry Lamb]

14 hours ago, swoopy2110 said:

The fog would be preventing movements at Ronaldsway though 😜

Seacat from Derbyhaven to Queen's Pier, travel on re-instated railway to Sulby then transfer to relocated horse-trams.

 

[lfc84]

Public outcry about not wanting to travel as far as Jurby to get a flight, about cost and wildlife.

 

So they'll decide to extend the runway at Ronaldsway and the terminal which will be cheaper than new build at Jurby and the public will be happy 🙂

[Roger Mexico]

9 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

10 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Birds and aircraft in the same place would be a problem.

.....are always a problem and have been since the Wright brothers.

Skylarks as well as a breeding habitat for linnets and curlew will still be there on and over the airfield.

Skylarks perhaps - Jersey seem to have a good few, though that probably depends on how you manage the outfield.  But curlew would probably be too large and linnets flock, both of which can cause problems for planes.

We know from an FoI published this May (ref 3863133) that there a fair amount of wildlife shot at Ronaldsway every year, both avian:

and lagomorph:

and I would imagine the situation would have to be the same at Jurby.  Though as I said, I suspect the whole thing is just an excuse to throw money at the usual suspects for consulting work and whatever.

Edited July 31 by Roger Mexico
Clarity

[Anyone]

You could always fly from Ronaldsway to Jurby. And vice versa. Probably cheaper than a late night taxi if you fancy a night out at the other end of the Island.

[Cambon]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Skylarks perhaps - Jersey seem to have a good few, though that probably depends on how you manage the outfield.  But curlew would probably be too large and linnets flock, both of which can cause problems for planes.

We know from an FoI published this May (ref 3863133) that there a fair amount of wildlife shot every year, both avian:

and lagomorph:

and I would imagine the situation would have to be the same at Jurby.  Though as I said, I suspect the whole thing is just an excuse to throw money at the usual suspects for consulting work and whatever.

Wallabies? 

[Fred the shred]

The airport should have been at Jurby from the start the climate is so much better in the north regarding fog and mist, too late now.

[hampsterkahn]

The airport scheme should to be included  with this  one in a special folder marked ‘BS Schemes’

- under the subheading ‘ Total BS’.

After it has been filed away somewhere dark and dusty, attention  can be  refocused on any of the many  more  important issues that require action rather than words.

 

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, hampsterkahn said:

The airport scheme should to be included  with this  one in a special folder marked ‘BS Schemes’

- under the subheading ‘ Total BS’.

After it has been filed away somewhere dark and dusty, attention  can be  refocused on any of the many  more  important issues that require action rather than words.

 

But is it a plan, or keeping an option for the future should circumstances require it?  Is that not sensible?  

An awful lot if hysteria about, which could be dispelled by a clear statement of the intent. 

 

[Fred the shred]

Yes I agree Gladys this plan would probably be looked at in about 50 years time when the world will be a different place.   It should be made clear to residents that it is only a proposal but even so I would expect with this on the cards even in the far future it will put a question mark over property value in the area.    The way things are going Tynwald Hill will be the only green space left by then 🥲 .

[Utah 01]

16 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

It should be made clear to residents that it is only a proposal

I think you are right and I think that is all that will come out of the meeting.

Cannan will be there to appease his voter base and assure them that nothing is going to happen within many of their lifetimes.  The planning is simply flagging up what might happen and he can say that 'you have been notified'.

Cobb will be there to back up Cannan to emphasize that they have looked at Ronaldsway's potential (quite what for given its 15 flights per day) and concluded hat there might, at a future date, be a need for a new airport and Jurby would be the best location as and when.

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

Yes I agree Gladys this plan would probably be looked at in about 50 years time when the world will be a different place.   It should be made clear to residents that it is only a proposal but even so I would expect with this on the cards even in the far future it will put a question mark over property value in the area.    The way things are going Tynwald Hill will be the only green space left by then 🥲 .

It's not even a proposal, yet.  It really needs a clear statement about it from IOMG.  Without that, I sympathise with the residents over their fears.